The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA) regulates all Indian gaming today and provides the framework for the agreements that tribes and states negotiate to facilitate gaming. Meant to achieve “a principal goal of Federal Indian policy [which] is to promote tribal economic development, tribal self-sufficiency, and strong tribal government,” the IGRA mirrors the Supreme Court's holding in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians in stating that “Indian tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by federal law and is conducted within a State which does not, as a matter of criminal law and public policy, prohibit such gaming activity.”
The intention of IGRA was to provide the framework for gaming regulation on Indian reservations (or on certain tribal lands that are characterized as something other than a “reservation” such as restricted fee lands owned by tribes in New York or tribal jurisdictional areas in Oklahoma). To that end, Congress established an independent regulatory agency, the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), with oversight authority to define and enforce national standards. Part of that standardization involved the classification of gaming operations:                1. Class I gaming encompasses traditional games used in ceremonial and social settings that are completely outside the scope of any but tribal regulation and control.        2. Class II gaming includes “the game of chance commonly known as bingo . . . including (if played in the same location) pull-tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars, instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo.” Importantly, such games may still be defined as Class II even if they are played using a computer, an electronic device, or other technologic aid. Also included in Class II are card games “not explicitly prohibited” by the State, provided they are otherwise in conformity with all other State laws and regulations. Excluded from Class II are “banking card games” (e.g. baccarat, blackjack) and “electronic facsimiles of any game of chance or slot machines of any kind.”        3. Class III gaming consists of all gaming that is not class I or II. This class includes so-called ‘Vegas-style’ games, such as house-banked card games, roulette, slot machines, and the like.        
Class III gaming operations also must be “conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact.”
The laws of agency play a crucial role in discussion of remote gaming. NIGC General Counsel Kevin Washburn summarized the applicability of agency law to tribal gaming interests in a 2000 NIGC opinion. Mr. Washburn summarized the applicability of the law of agency under the IGRA when he stated “IGRA contains no statutory prohibition on the use of agents to play the game of bingo. The bingo definition contained in IGRA requires only that the “holder of the card” cover the numbers. 25 U.S.C. §2703 (7)(A)(i)(II). The “holder” is not defined. The holder in [this instance] is either the player or the player's designated agent. Although the bingo definition in the NIGC regulations replaces the word “holder” with the word “player,” this is a distinction without a difference when the law of agency is applied to the analysis. It is a fundamental tenet of the law of agency that the acts of the agent are deemed to be the acts of the principal. See 3 Am. Jur. 2D Agency §2 (1986); See also Lubbock Feed Lots, Inc. v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 630 F2d 250, 272 (5th Cir. 1980); U.S. v. Sylvanus, 192 F.2d 96, 108 (7th Cir. 1951); and Lux Art Van Service, Inc. v. Pollard, 344 F.2d 883, 887 (9th Cir. 1965). When the agent plays [the bingo game] for the player, the act of playing the card is deemed to be the act of the player/principal. The legal effect is that the agent is the player. Therefore, the use of agents violates neither IGRA's provision regarding the holder nor NIGC's regulations that discuss the player.”
The present invention is aimed at one or more of the problems set forth above.